Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[edlinked]

In your views you put love and tenderness, but your views doesn’t reflect love and tenderness.

For me it’s like saying, marriage is kind of a sex slave in the love and the tenderness.

It’s the same with the forcing rules you want to add. Forced (as in rules) and love are contradicting things, one cannot go with the other. Because you are forcing the other, and that is not giving each other, that is not friendship, that is not benevolence, that is not virtue.

For me this is another warning light that your views are wrong. I read a post before saying a comment including the word rape, now, I wrote something about sex slave. For me this simple relation to those things (rape and sex slave), even if you know those are wrong, or are not even stating them, tells me your views are wrong. Because love should be so far away from that relation, that just you thinking on them, is not good. There is no way you can mistake them, no way there can be a slight relation to them.

Sexual acts are based on love, following loves responsibility towards the person.

Love is something that it always has to be there (for everyone), sexual intercourse is just in marriage and is done for procreation, and only when love is there, it will be positive for the union of the persons (because it cannot be based on pleasure). You need to understand true love first, so that the intercourse is ordered correctly. But love in its objective profile should have been there from the start, before intercourse was an option.

Marriage is the appropriate union for two persons to procreate because it is based on love. It is not a sacrament of sex, but a sacrament of love as God is love.

Everything that is an orchestration looking for our own satisfaction is not love.

The base for marriage is spiritual love (objective profile, the one that comes from inside), this is the one that lasts, the one that doesn’t cease (if you work for it of course). The instinct should be tamed by virtue. What fills the heart is love.

If when loving a person is impossible to leave aside the physical giving, there are enough motives to ask if the predominance belongs to affection or to sex.

The one that is not able to love in continence, there is no reason to believe he can love in matrimony.

You don’t impose love. You give and you gain it cultivating it every day.

John Paul II said sometime: “Love according to Christ is a difficult and demanding path. To be what God wants, demands an effort that is patient, a struggle with ourselves. You want to shut oneself up in the circle of your instincts? In man, unlike animals, instinct doesn’t have the right to have the last word.”

True love orders the human sexual act and even helps in a sense in homosexuality. We cannot be objects of use or use someone as an object of use. Because of the responsibility for the person through love, sexual values are subordinated to the value of the person and sex shouldn’t be used without being open for procreation (because you would be using someone or being used as an object of use, as a mere tool).

 

[fpt]

My first comments

Ftp, like I said, we greatly disagree. For me your views are about forcing sexual acts, because of the pleasure they give, more than on the union they can represent or bring.
For me is obviously that love is not the important thing on your views, at least not the true love the church teaches (Gods love, with sacrifices and justice).

For me now, your views are more degrading. You put the utilitarian property as a forced right on marriage and in the union of persons. Using, in your views, is something that you think, can’t be done in marriage. You think abuse cannot be done or don’t know when you are abusing. Which is totally wrong to think, you can abuse even if you are married. You are abusing when you put sexual values above the value of the person, it is as simple as that (which on your views you are clearly doing).

It is interesting that you imply something like, let’s be real about them (the points Karol Wojtyla makes for example), and that we are not nuns or priests. And that Karol Wojtyla can put them on “paper” but “we” have to put them on practice, like if he didn’t lived among us (or wrote them exactly because he knew how people can take things to their own thinking). (Keep in mind this is what I am getting from your replies, let me know if I am misunderstanding).

For me that’s why your statements are approached very badly, and in the wrong way. As you know, the way of man is not the same as the way of God. Man can abuse and has abuse on many things, that’s why God states a correct path. You don’t love the body, you love the person that contains the body.

Sorry, but in catholic philosophy, I am a human being (a human person, a creature of God at His image and is ) what means to be a body, a soul and heart. I am body, soul and heart, all the time and concomitamment. Thus, in the marriage, my will is to love the other human being totally, body, soul and heart. The conjugal love is physical, sensible, spiritual and affective. I am my body, my soul and my heart. " The person that contains the body" is a incorrect formulation , in my humble opinion.

Sure we are not nuns or priests (because in this case some chose marriage), but our thinking must be very similar. We are all called to sainthood, with no exception. I think putting the person over the sexual values is the first step. The objective profile of love is universal.

The point is that you need to really understand what is love, what is true love, first of all. And I think saints (like Karol Wojtyla) are the ones that understand what true love is first, because that’s what they decide to look for more strongly in their life (than others), look for God in his attributes. And as they control the concupiscence of the flesh (always), as they have a chastity vow (most of them), they understand that love doesn’t have any problem with that, in fact they learned that love has a clear path without it.

What we get from them, is that sexual intercourse is not love (that affections from it, does not tend to love, that pleasure from it, is not love), and that you don’t love because of it, therefore love cannot force sexual acts, love will not force sexual acts, because of its own principle.

You can have the most affective sexual life, but if it is not based on the objective profile of love it will hurt one or both spouses, it’s a matter of time (that’s a fact).

That’s why moral rights cannot force sexual acts. In your way, you are forcing someone through love, this for me is not right, and very dangerous.

For me, you in a way are saying something like, in marriage the person is the greatest good in as much as we give sexual pleasure.

My point is that love doesn’t need sex, understand that I am not saying sexual intercourse is bad, but love is not that. My point is that you can have love without sexual intercourse. Love doesn’t reside in sexual pleasures and should not reside in it.

Marriage is for procreation*** (a reductionism, that is not totally the catholic doctrine), *** The 4 ends of the marriage and of the marital act!!! because the point is not about sexual pleasure, is about the union of the persons (and I am not lowering the union of persons to union of the physical bodies). Only by procreation (toward this end from both spouses), you don’t use the person as an object of use, and through this act, as persons are bodies too, pleasure comes in the equation. And it is corrected in the equation inasmuch as true love is there. If marriage is just a sexual contract, true love will not be there.

If a spouse don’t want to do something it is not necessarily because they don’t love the other, but because they might not like it or “hurts” them, then you state that love should force (as a rule) you to do something that you might not like but the other does (and we are talking about pleasure here), how is that love? Why would the act that just gives pleasure overcome the one that hurts the person, and then you expect love, to be on the side of pleasure. Because even if its affectivity, if you force it, the outcome will not be positive anyway. In my book the “sacrifice”, if you love, truly love, would be done by the person that seeks pleasure. Because you love the person, because of the kind of good pleasure is. You are stating that love will let someone be hurt (by someone that supposedly loves you) because of the pleasure of the other. Don’t you think then, the marriage will go downhill from that, as pleasure is more important.

 

[fpt]

In your views you put love and tenderness, but your views doesn’t reflect love and tenderness.

For me it’s like saying, marriage is kind of a sex slave in the love and the tenderness.

It’s the same with the forcing rules you want to add. Forced (as in rules) and love are contradicting things, one cannot go with the other. Because you are forcing the other, and that is not giving each other, that is not friendship, that is not benevolence, that is not virtue.

For me this is another warning light that your views are wrong. I read a post before saying a comment including the word rape, now, I wrote something about sex slave. For me this simple relation to those things (rape and sex slave), even if you know those are wrong, or are not even stating them, tells me your views are wrong. Because love should be so far away from that relation, that just you thinking on them, is not good. There is no way you can mistake them, no way there can be a slight relation to them.

Sexual acts are based on love, following loves responsibility towards the person.

Love is something that it always has to be there (for everyone), sexual intercourse is just in marriage and is done for procreation, and only when love is there, it will be positive for the union of the persons (because it cannot be based on pleasure). You need to understand true love first, so that the intercourse is ordered correctly. But love in its objective profile should have been there from the start, before intercourse was an option.

Marriage is the appropriate union for two persons to procreate because it is based on love. It is not a sacrament of sex, but a sacrament of love as God is love.

Everything that is an orchestration looking for our own satisfaction is not love.

The base for marriage is spiritual love (objective profile, the one that comes from inside), this is the one that lasts, the one that doesn’t cease (if you work for it of course). The instinct should be tamed by virtue. What fills the heart is love.

If when loving a person is impossible to leave aside the physical giving, there are enough motives to ask if the predominance belongs to affection or to sex.

The one that is not able to love in continence, there is no reason to believe he can love in matrimony.

You don’t impose love. You give and you gain it cultivating it every day.

John Paul II said sometime: “Love according to Christ is a difficult and demanding path. To be what God wants, demands an effort that is patient, a struggle with ourselves. You want to shut oneself up in the circle of your instincts? In man, unlike animals, instinct doesn’t have the right to have the last word.”

True love orders the human sexual act and even helps in a sense in homosexuality. We cannot be objects of use or use someone as an object of use. Because of the responsibility for the person through love, sexual values are subordinated to the value of the person and sex shouldn’t be used without being open for procreation (because you would be using someone or being used as an object of use, as a mere tool).

We can not be on the same line because we are disagree with:

The definition of the human nature, what we are, our state of human person: body, soul and heart with their corollaries; I am my body, my soul and my heart.
The ends of marriage;
The ends of the conjugal act;
The deep particularity of the conjugal love;
The existence of the notion of the right to the body, of the body and on the body coming from the Canon Law;
The existence of conjugal sexual physical rights for each member of the couple: of course, those rights are not absolute, for each one there is moral regime, it is a truism;
The roles and the functions of conjugal sexual pleasures and of conjugal orgasms;
The conjugal act as one of hard cores of vows of the marriage;

Do you know that the declaration of nullity of the marriage can be got if, before the wedding, the doctrinal refusal of the existence of the conjugal duty with all the implications is denied and is not consented by the volition, and if by consequence there are effects on the essential and fundamental rights, essential and fundamental fruits (goods), essential and fundamental obligations and essential and fundamental duties of the marriage?? See the Canon Law, the Jurisprudence et the canonical doctrine.

 

[fpt]

Ftp, like I said, we greatly disagree. For me your views are about forcing sexual acts, because of the pleasure they give, more than on the union they can represent or bring.
For me is obviously that love is not the important thing on your views, at least not the true love the church teaches (Gods love, with sacrifices and justice).

For me now, your views are more degrading. You put the utilitarian property as a forced right on marriage and in the union of persons. Using, in your views, is something that you think, can’t be done in marriage. You think abuse cannot be done or don’t know when you are abusing. Which is totally wrong to think, you can abuse even if you are married. You are abusing when you put sexual values above the value of the person, it is as simple as that (which on your views you are clearly doing).

It is interesting that you imply something like, let’s be real about them (the points Karol Wojtyla makes for example), and that we are not nuns or priests. And that Karol Wojtyla can put them on “paper” but “we” have to put them on practice, like if he didn’t lived among us (or wrote them exactly because he knew how people can take things to their own thinking). (Keep in mind this is what I am getting from your replies, let me know if I am misunderstanding).

For me that’s why your statements are approached very badly, and in the wrong way. As you know, the way of man is not the same as the way of God. Man can abuse and has abuse on many things, that’s why God states a correct path. You don’t love the body, you love the person that contains the body.

Sure we are not nuns or priests (because in this case some chose marriage), but our thinking must be very similar. We are all called to sainthood, with no exception. I think putting the person over the sexual values is the first step. The objective profile of love is universal.

The point is that you need to really understand what is love, what is true love, first of all. And I think saints (like Karol Wojtyla) are the ones that understand what true love is first, because that’s what they decide to look for more strongly in their life (than others), look for God in his attributes. And as they control the concupiscence of the flesh (always), as they have a chastity vow (most of them), they understand that love doesn’t have any problem with that, in fact they learned that love has a clear path without it.

What we get from them, is that sexual intercourse is not love (that affections from it, does not tend to love, that pleasure from it, is not love), and that you don’t love because of it, therefore love cannot force sexual acts, love will not force sexual acts, because of its own principle.

You can have the most affective sexual life, but if it is not based on the objective profile of love it will hurt one or both spouses, it’s a matter of time (that’s a fact).

That’s why moral rights cannot force sexual acts. In your way, you are forcing someone through love, this for me is not right, and very dangerous.

For me, you in a way are saying something like, in marriage the person is the greatest good in as much as we give sexual pleasure.

My point is that love doesn’t need sex, understand that I am not saying sexual intercourse is bad, but love is not that. My point is that you can have love without sexual intercourse. Love doesn’t reside in sexual pleasures and should not reside in it.

Marriage is for procreation, because the point is not about sexual pleasure, is about the union of the persons (and I am not lowering the union of persons to union of the physical bodies). Only by procreation (toward this end from both spouses), you don’t use the person as an object of use, and through this act, as persons are bodies too, pleasure comes in the equation. And it is corrected in the equation inasmuch as true love is there. If marriage is just a sexual contract, true love will not be there.

If a spouse don’t want to do something it is not necessarily because they don’t love the other, but because they might not like it or “hurts” them, then you state that love should force (as a rule) you to do something that you might not like but the other does (and we are talking about pleasure here), how is that love? Why would the act that just gives pleasure overcome the one that hurts the person, and then you expect love, to be on the side of pleasure. Because even if its affectivity, if you force it, the outcome will not be positive anyway. In my book the “sacrifice”, if you love, truly love, would be done by the person that seeks pleasure. Because you love the person, because of the kind of good pleasure is. You are stating that love will let someone be hurt (by someone that supposedly loves you) because of the pleasure of the other. Don’t you think then, the marriage will go downhill from that, as pleasure is more important.

I say that the refusal must be motivated and justified. The spouse who does not want to do has to explain the why to the other. Thus, each spouse is held to explain to the other, morally speaking: the obligation of explication coming from conjugal love and the conjugal justice linked to the conjugal vows. In the marriage, there is a minimum to want to do, otherwise the real life is impossible. ** If you love the other, you make efforts and sacrifices in the positive way and in the negative way. In the marriage, there are acts that are of the essence of the marriage and of the marital act. By principle they have to be practiced, by exception they can be not practiced, but there is an obligation of means to solving, if it is possible, by true love.

 

[fpt]

Other comments

edlinked;

For me now, your views are more degrading. You put the utilitarian property as a forced right on marriage and in the union of persons. Using, in your views, is something that you think, can’t be done in marriage. You think abuse cannot be done or don’t know when you are abusing. Of course, the abuses of the excesses can be done, it is a truism. Of course, the intrinsically acts can be done, I am aware of that.
*** Which is totally wrong to think, you can abuse even if you are married. You are abusing when you put sexual values above the value of the person, it is as simple as that (which on your views you are clearly doing). Your definition is quite correct, but in concreto, what are the objective abuses, per se and always, and the circunstancial abuses, only in function of circumstances. Materially speaking, an exemple of an abuse???*

It is interesting that you imply something like, let’s be real about them (the points Karol Wojtyla makes for example), and that we are not nuns or priests. And that Karol Wojtyla can put them on “paper” but “we” have to put them on practice, like if he didn’t lived among us (or wrote them exactly because he knew how people can take things to their own thinking). (Keep in mind this is what I am getting from your replies, let me know if I am misunderstanding).
**The written documents of Holy Pope make focus on the immaterial aspects, but as catholic couple we have to materialize them in the concrete life, by actions, by sexual physical acts and by intentions.
**
For me that’s why your statements are approached very badly, and in the wrong way. As you know, the way of man is not the same as the way of God. Man can abuse and has abuse on many things, that’s why God states a correct path. You don’t love the body, you love the person that contains the body.

Sure we are not nuns or priests (because in this case some chose marriage), but our thinking must be very similar.* No, No, the conjugal love is physical, sensible, spiritual and affectice* **The nuns and co have an affective and spiritual love with Jesus, not a physical love. The great difference!!!
**

We are all called to sainthood, with no exception. I think putting the person over the sexual values is the first step. **Yes, but the conjugal sexual values are existing!!! What place for them? **The objective profile of love is universal.

The point is that you need to really understand what is love, what is true love, first of all. And I think saints (like Karol Wojtyla) are the ones that understand what true love is first, because that’s what they decide to look for more strongly in their life (than others), look for God in his attributes. And as they control the concupiscence of the flesh (always), as they have a chastity vow (most of them), they understand that love doesn’t have any problem with that, in fact they learned that love has a clear path without it.

Chastity is in function of state of life. In the marriage, the conjugal chastity doesn’t mean no marital act, no sexual pleasure, no sexual orgasm, no conjugal erotism, no sexual preliminary, no sexual oral stimulation, no sight the nakedness of the other…etc.

What we get from them, is that sexual intercourse is not love (that affections from it, does not tend to love, that pleasure from it, is not love), and that you don’t love because of it, therefore love cannot force sexual acts, love will not force sexual acts, because of its own principle.

The conjugal act is an act of love. If you make love without one of 4 normal intentions in your mind, it is not morally good. The caresse, the massage, the kiss and co are acts of conjgal love. ** A minimum, in the human fashion is necessary**

You can have the most affective sexual life, but if it is not based on the objective profile of love it will hurt one or both spouses, it’s a matter of time (that’s a fact).

That’s why moral rights cannot force sexual acts. In your way, you are forcing someone through love, this for me is not right, and very dangerous. I have never say to force each other, per se, but each one has to honor the sexual vows in favor of the other, by principle.

For me, you in a way are saying something like, in marriage the person is the greatest good in as much as we give sexual pleasure.

My point is that love doesn’t need sex, understand that I am not saying sexual intercourse is bad, but love is not that. My point is that you can have love without sexual intercourse. Love doesn’t reside in sexual pleasures and should not reside in it. Conjugal love implies to respect the sexual rights of the other.

Marriage is for procreation, because the point is not about sexual pleasure, is about the union of the persons (and I am not lowering the union of persons to union of the physical bodies). Only by procreation (toward this end from both spouses), you don’t use the person as an object of use, and through this act, as persons are bodies too, pleasure comes in the equation. And it is corrected in the equation inasmuch as true love is there. If marriage is just a sexual contract, true love will not be there.

 

[fpt]

And keep in mind that people should have been virgins, they should come from that. (Even if that’s not the case, the point is to have self mastery).

Of course if you are married, procreation is the objective end of your sexual instinct, we know there is going to be intercourse. The body is part of the person. But it has to be ordered by love, because the “body” can undermine the person, and will undermine the person.

The body, the heart and the soul can undermine the person, not, only, the body. All the person can undermine the other person. As catholic, the doctrine of the duality between materiality and immateriality is morally wrong.

A point you make is that someone can go to adultery if the spouse doesn’t satisfy your “needs”. Remember that this “needs” comes from the sexual drive, the drive has an objective, it is not satisfying with pleasure, it is procreation.

No no, it is so reductor. The marriage and the conjugal sex are not only for procreation.

We can see that the concupiscence of the flesh is so strong that you see many people cave under it sometimes. Adultery is not necessarily because someone else didn’t satisfy your “needs”, your needs also have to be tamed by yourself. No one can feel your needs, as they are yours, and these needs in this case are your pleasures, and they are subjective. This needs will come even from before you get married. Your needs need to be controlled as they can go crazy if you don’t (you can abuse on them). You are talking as if the drive cannot be tamed, well that’s not right, as you see chastity vows. The same goes as things like, you going to the bathroom, you cannot say that you will go to the bathroom anytime, you need to control that urge for later. In fact that is kind of a wrong example, because you need to go to the bathroom sometime, which it is not the case with the sexual drive. The sexual drive can be controlled indefinitely, as long as you want, of course, in the case you have self mastery, temperance and chastity.

In the couple, the dialogue on the conjugal sexuality and co is important. Each one is here, for each other. As spouse, each one has to respond to sexual normal desires of the other. In the marriage, you share your sexual needs and co, otherwise it a great issue. You are forgetting the medicinal aspect of the conjugal act. * If you read the Canon Law, each one has to make an introspection for knowing if he or she has not participated, in the objective way, to a sexual sin of the other.*

Your thinking that satisfaction from someone else in the case of pleasing your pleasure is the answer (for example for adultery), is wrong, first you need to tame it too. We can see an easy example in king David. He sinned very badly (adultery included), his judgment was clouded because of the concupiscence of the flesh (that’s how strong it is), the desire of the body, and people died because of him, because of that temptation. Adultery is treated not by the satisfaction of someone else to your needs (that’s not the correct approach), it is self mastery and chastity that helps you there. King David had many different ways of satisfying his sexual drive (meaning other women, that was not enough). And see the similar occasion, a prophet tells him that he has done something wrong, that’s how saints (like Karol Wojtyla) in a relational way, stir you to the correct path, because we can lose it if we are not “paying attention”.

To see the person, self mastery and chastity, needs to be part of you, if not pleasure can be the one that leads, or it will be the one that leads. That is why polygamy is also seen as a way of using as an object of use.

The approach to control it, it is not by having your spouse satisfy you (everytime the drive acts), It is by self mastery and chastity. It is something of the person of the individual, that is why it is called self mastery. Then you can think on your spouse the way you should, and order the sexual intercourse and not let egoism enter your marriage (in harmony).

That’s exactly why you shouldn’t have sex before marriage, to get self mastery. That’s why masturbation is wrong, and chastity is the way. It is because the virtue of love should be present before marriage, and know that the sexual instinct (and the concupiscence of the flesh) because it gives pleasure, if it is not corrected, it’s going to be derailed, and the one that will be hurt will be a person. And not just a person, it will be your spouse. That’s why some understand this as, purely not doing something that the spouse don’t like. Love is about wanting the best for your spouse (and not necessarily just what you think is best, as that can be subjective). The best for your spouse will end up being God, because, that’s the “best good”.

You state your moral rights or the moral rights you think are the ones that everybody like or should accept on sexual stuff, isn’t that subjectivism, with a libidinistic way of looking at things. Even the Church will not put rules, because we cannot force sexual acts by love, but they can give rules on achieving true love, because the affirmation of the value of the person is not something subjective.

You say that spouses have moral rights to satisfy and please the spouse sexually speaking. This is basically why the sexual drive has an objective end, it is not sexual pleasing, it is procreation, that’s why marriages has to be based on love, it is not for the pleasures of the body, it’s for the union of the persons (very different things). The union of persons is not merely the union of bodies. Loving is not the same as having sexual intercourse, or getting pleasure from it.

Ill tell you a way you can undermine a spouse, not affirming the value of the person, putting sexual values over the person.

 

[fpt]

In your views you put love and tenderness, but your views doesn’t reflect love and tenderness.

For me it’s like saying, marriage is kind of a sex slave in the love and the tenderness.

The marriage is the donation and the reception of human persons, body, soul and heart. One of parts is the donation and reception of bodies. Each body has a sexuation. The moral order of the conjugal act and the rules are existing. In the marriage, each one is under the yoke, in the catholic way, of the other: it a truism. If you are not okay with that, it is an issue. “Conjugal” means yoke, link, tie and submission.

It’s the same with the forcing rules you want to add. Forced (as in rules) and love are contradicting things, one cannot go with the other. Because you are forcing the other, and that is not giving each other, that is not friendship, that is not benevolence, that is not virtue.

For me this is another warning light that your views are wrong. I read a post before saying a comment including the word rape, now, I wrote something about sex slave. For me this simple relation to those things (rape and sex slave), even if you know those are wrong, or are not even stating them, tells me your views are wrong. Because love should be so far away from that relation, that just you thinking on them, is not good. There is no way you can mistake them, no way there can be a slight relation to them.

Sexual acts are based on love, following loves responsibility towards the person.

The sexual acts are based on love,* but after the Fall, there is the conjugal justice. If you disagree with that, it is an issue.* Not a sacrament of sex, may be, not sure, but a sexed and sexual sacrament.

Love is something that it always has to be there (for everyone), sexual intercourse is just in marriage and is done for procreation, and only when love is there, it will be positive for the union of the persons (because it cannot be based on pleasure). You need to understand true love first, so that the intercourse is ordered correctly. But love in its objective profile should have been there from the start, before intercourse was an option.

Marriage is the appropriate union for two persons to procreate because it is based on love. It is not a sacrament of sex, but a sacrament of love as God is love.

Everything that is an orchestration looking for our own satisfaction is not love.

The base for marriage is spiritual love (objective profile, the one that comes from inside), this is the one that lasts, the one that doesn’t cease (if you work for it of course). The instinct should be tamed by virtue. What fills the heart is love.

If when loving a person is impossible to leave aside the physical giving, there are enough motives to ask if the predominance belongs to affection or to sex.

The one that is not able to love in continence, there is no reason to believe he can love in matrimony.

You don’t impose love. You give and you gain it cultivating it every day.

John Paul II said sometime: “Love according to Christ is a difficult and demanding path. To be what God wants, demands an effort that is patient, a struggle with ourselves. You want to shut oneself up in the circle of your instincts? In man, unlike animals, instinct doesn’t have the right to have the last word.”

True love orders the human sexual act and even helps in a sense in homosexuality. We cannot be objects of use or use someone as an object of use. Because of the responsibility for the person through love, sexual values are subordinated to the value of the person and sex shouldn’t be used without being open for procreation (because you would be using someone or being used as an object of use, as a mere tool).

The day of marriage, each one consents to love, the vows of love. There is a moral obligation to love other, with the heart, with the spiritual soul, with the sensibe soul and with the body. Each member of couple has the moral obligation to love the other in the conjugal way. An act of free will.

 

[fpt]

In your views you put love and tenderness, but your views doesn’t reflect love and tenderness.

For me it’s like saying, marriage is kind of a sex slave in the love and the tenderness.

It’s the same with the forcing rules you want to add. Forced (as in rules) and love are contradicting things, one cannot go with the other. Because you are forcing the other, and that is not giving each other, that is not friendship, that is not benevolence, that is not virtue.

For me this is another warning light that your views are wrong. I read a post before saying a comment including the word rape, now, I wrote something about sex slave. For me this simple relation to those things (rape and sex slave), even if you know those are wrong, or are not even stating them, tells me your views are wrong. Because love should be so far away from that relation, that just you thinking on them, is not good. There is no way you can mistake them, no way there can be a slight relation to them.

Sexual acts are based on love, following loves responsibility towards the person.

Love is something that it always has to be there (for everyone), sexual intercourse is just in marriage and is done for procreation, and only when love is there, it will be positive for the union of the persons (because it cannot be based on pleasure). You need to understand true love first, so that the intercourse is ordered correctly. But love in its objective profile should have been there from the start, before intercourse was an option.

Marriage is the appropriate union for two persons to procreate because it is based on love. It is not a sacrament of sex, but a sacrament of love as God is love.

Everything that is an orchestration looking for our own satisfaction is not love.

The base for marriage is spiritual love (objective profile, the one that comes from inside), this is the one that lasts, the one that doesn’t cease (if you work for it of course). The instinct should be tamed by virtue. What fills the heart is love.

If when loving a person is impossible to leave aside the physical giving, there are enough motives to ask if the predominance belongs to affection or to sex.

The one that is not able to love in continence, there is no reason to believe he can love in matrimony.

You don’t impose love. You give and you gain it cultivating it every day.

John Paul II said sometime: “Love according to Christ is a difficult and demanding path. To be what God wants, demands an effort that is patient, a struggle with ourselves. You want to shut oneself up in the circle of your instincts? In man, unlike animals, instinct doesn’t have the right to have the last word.”

True love orders the human sexual act and even helps in a sense in homosexuality. We cannot be objects of use or use someone as an object of use. Because of the responsibility for the person through love, sexual values are subordinated to the value of the person and sex shouldn’t be used without being open for procreation (because you would be using someone or being used as an object of use, as a mere tool).

Each spouse has to please the other spouse and has to satisfy the other spouse, in respecting the moral order of the dual humanity. Each one has to offer, to give and to donate his or her own body. Each one has to take and has to receive the body of the other, in the human fashion, with sexual cooperation. Each one is a passive agent and an active agent. The centrality of the union of bodies exists: that is very important, fundamental and essential. Each one has to honor the other, sexually speaking. Each one has the right to be honored, sexually speaking. The fact of being filled in, sexually speaking and in the marriage, by the other is a gift, a present, a mercy, a grace.

 

[fpt]

And keep in mind that people should have been virgins, they should come from that. (Even if that’s not the case, the point is to have self mastery).

Of course if you are married, procreation is the objective end of your sexual instinct, we know there is going to be intercourse. The body is part of the person. But it has to be ordered by love, because the “body” can undermine the person, and will undermine the person.

A point you make is that someone can go to adultery if the spouse doesn’t satisfy your “needs”. Remember that this “needs” comes from the sexual drive, the drive has an objective, it is not satisfying with pleasure, it is procreation.

We can see that the concupiscence of the flesh is so strong that you see many people cave under it sometimes. Adultery is not necessarily because someone else didn’t satisfy your “needs”, your needs also have to be tamed by yourself. No one can feel your needs, as they are yours, and these needs in this case are your pleasures, and they are subjective. This needs will come even from before you get married. Your needs need to be controlled as they can go crazy if you don’t (you can abuse on them). You are talking as if the drive cannot be tamed, well that’s not right, as you see chastity vows. The same goes as things like, you going to the bathroom, you cannot say that you will go to the bathroom anytime, you need to control that urge for later. In fact that is kind of a wrong example, because you need to go to the bathroom sometime, which it is not the case with the sexual drive. The sexual drive can be controlled indefinitely, as long as you want, of course, in the case you have self mastery, temperance and chastity.

Your thinking that satisfaction from someone else in the case of pleasing your pleasure is the answer (for example for adultery), is wrong, first you need to tame it too. We can see an easy example in king David. He sinned very badly (adultery included), his judgment was clouded because of the concupiscence of the flesh (that’s how strong it is), the desire of the body, and people died because of him, because of that temptation. Adultery is treated not by the satisfaction of someone else to your needs (that’s not the correct approach), it is self mastery and chastity that helps you there. King David had many different ways of satisfying his sexual drive (meaning other women, that was not enough). And see the similar occasion, a prophet tells him that he has done something wrong, that’s how saints (like Karol Wojtyla) in a relational way, stir you to the correct path, because we can lose it if we are not “paying attention”.

To see the person, self mastery and chastity, needs to be part of you, if not pleasure can be the one that leads, or it will be the one that leads. That is why polygamy is also seen as a way of using as an object of use.

Legitimate Moral Reasons for “Severing the Conjugal Life”?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=873282

The repeated refusal of the marital act [without reasonable reason] can be an one form of provocation to adulter. Reason and Faith, Faith and Reason are the rules .

*The repeated refusal of normal sexual caresses to give or to receive [without reasonable reason] can be an one form of provocation to sexual sins of the other.

The non respect of sexual physical rights [without reasonable reason] can provok sexual sins.

We are not in the ideal world. The sin is present, and the rules are the rules.

The list can be long.*

Can. 1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

§2. Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery. It is presumed, moreover, if the spouse observed conjugal living for six months and did not make recourse to the ecclesiastical or civil authority.

§3. If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too diYcult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

Can. 1154 After the separation of the spouses has taken place, the adequate support and education of the children must always be suitably provided.

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

 

[fpt]

Corrections

edlinked

Legitimate Moral Reasons for “Severing the Conjugal Life”?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=873282

The repeated refusal of the marital act [without reasonable reason] can be an one form of provocation to adultery. Reason and Faith, Faith and Reason are the rules .

*The repeated refusal of normal sexual caresses to give or to receive [without reasonable reason] can be an one form of provocation to sexual sins of the other.

The non respect of sexual physical rights [without reasonable reason] can provok sexual sins.

We are not in the ideal world. The sin is present, and the rules are the rules.

The list can be long.*

Can. 1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

§2. Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery. It is presumed, moreover, if the spouse observed conjugal living for six months and did not make recourse to the ecclesiastical or civil authority.

§3. If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too diYcult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

Can. 1154 After the separation of the spouses has taken place, the adequate support and education of the children must always be suitably provided.

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

The fact of neglecting the spouse, sexually speaking, is going against the conjugal justice. Only, a " good reason " can be justify that. What is a good reason??? That is the great question!!! You do not respond to my questions that are into my messages. Why!!!

Each one is the " human keeper angel " of the conjugal chastity of the other. It is only an image and an analogy (a soft thought with limits, of course).

 

[clem456]

Corrections

edlinked

Legitimate Moral Reasons for “Severing the Conjugal Life”?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=873282

The repeated refusal of the marital act [without reasonable reason] can be an one form of provocation to adultery. Reason and Faith, Faith and Reason are the rules .

*The repeated refusal of normal sexual caresses to give or to receive [without reasonable reason] can be an one form of provocation to sexual sins of the other.

The non respect of sexual physical rights [without reasonable reason] can provok sexual sins.

We are not in the ideal world. The sin is present, and the rules are the rules.

The list can be long.*

Can. 1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

§2. Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery. It is presumed, moreover, if the spouse observed conjugal living for six months and did not make recourse to the ecclesiastical or civil authority.

§3. If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too diYcult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

Can. 1154 After the separation of the spouses has taken place, the adequate support and education of the children must always be suitably provided.

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

The fact of neglecting the spouse, sexually speaking, is going against the conjugal justice. Only, a " good reason " can be justify that. What is a good reason??? That is the great question!!! You do not respond to my questions that are into my messages. Why!!!

Each one is the " human keeper angel " of the conjugal chastity of the other. It is only an image and an analogy (a soft thought with limits, of course).

Yes, yes, and yes.
But you make an unsubstantiated link between what the Church teaches and a right to pleasure, one spouse over the other.
In effect what you are doing is claiming a right of one person over the actions of another, serving the ends of pleasure. This right over another person does not exist.

It’s like claiming that I have rights over an apple to please my taste buds. I have a right to eat, I may have a right to pick the apple, but I don’t have a right to pleasure. That makes the apple my object.
It’s an insufficient analogy, but the point is, human beings cannot be objects for pleasure. Pleasure is a fruit of the act, not the end.

 

[clem456]

Corrections

edlinked

Legitimate Moral Reasons for “Severing the Conjugal Life”?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=873282

The repeated refusal of the marital act [without reasonable reason] can be an one form of provocation to adultery. Reason and Faith, Faith and Reason are the rules .

The repeated refusal of normal sexual caresses to give or to receive [without reasonable reason] can be an one form of provocation to sexual sins of the other.

The non respect of sexual physical rights [without reasonable reason] can provok sexual sins.

We are not in the ideal world. The sin is present, and the rules are the rules.

The list can be long.

Can. 1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

§2. Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery. It is presumed, moreover, if the spouse observed conjugal living for six months and did not make recourse to the ecclesiastical or civil authority.

§3. If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too diYcult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

Can. 1154 After the separation of the spouses has taken place, the adequate support and education of the children must always be suitably provided.

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

Yes, yes, and yes.
But you make an unsubstantiated link between what the Church teaches and a right to pleasure, one spouse over the other.
In effect what you are doing is claiming a right of one person over the actions of another, serving the ends of pleasure. This right over another person does not exist.

It’s like claiming that I have rights over an apple to please my taste buds. I have a right to eat, I may have a right to pick the apple, but I don’t have a right to pleasure. That makes the apple my object.
It’s an insufficient analogy, but the point is, human beings cannot be objects for pleasure. Pleasure is a fruit of the act, not an end.

 

[fpt]

Yes, yes, and yes.
But you make an unsubstantiated link between what the Church teaches and a right to pleasure, one spouse over the other.
In effect what you are doing is claiming a right of one person over the actions of another, serving the ends of pleasure. This right over another person does not exist.

It’s like claiming that I have rights over an apple to please my taste buds. I have a right to eat, I may have a right to pick the apple, but I don’t have a right to pleasure. That makes the apple my object.
It’s an insufficient analogy, but the point is, human beings cannot be objects for pleasure. Pleasure is a fruit of the act, not an end.

Can we be* a subject of pleasure,* not an object?

 

[fpt]

Yes, yes, and yes.
But you make an unsubstantiated link between what the Church teaches and a right to pleasure, one spouse over the other.
In effect what you are doing is claiming a right of one person over the actions of another, serving the ends of pleasure. This right over another person does not exist.

It’s like claiming that I have rights over an apple to please my taste buds. I have a right to eat, I may have a right to pick the apple, but I don’t have a right to pleasure. That makes the apple my object.
It’s an insufficient analogy, but the point is, human beings cannot be objects for pleasure. Pleasure is a fruit of the act, not an end.

For instance:*

During the practicing the marital act, by principle, each member of couple should to try to be, in reason of the contract of marriage:

The best lover as possible as in favor of the other. That means a moral obligation of means of trying* to imitate the Song of Songs*, of consenting to give caresses and sexual caresses wanted and willed by the other and thus of consenting to please and satisfy the other, sexually speaking. But also, that means* a moral obligation of means of trying of consenting to receive caresses and sexual caresses coming from the other.* Each one is a passive agent and an active agent. Each one has the moral right to work on the body of the other, in the human fashion. Each one has the moral obligation to let the other to work on his or her body.
*
A wife has no right to say to her husband " I don’t want to be seen and looked at by you at the moment of my orgasms". The husband has the moral right to see her wife during her climaxes. He has the moral right to see, to feel, to hear, and to listen the body of his wife at those moments.* Some wifes do not want to be stared during their orgasms, the husbands can require that. The husband can look at the face and the sexual reactions of his wife. If the wife refuses, she is not in her moral right, she has an issue, she has to consult.

 

[fpt]

Corrections

For instance:*

During the practicing *of *the marital act, by principle, each member of couple should to try to be, in reason of the contract of marriage:

The best lover as possible as in favor of the other. That means a moral obligation of means of trying* to imitate the Song of Songs*, of consenting to give caresses and sexual caresses wanted and willed by the other and thus of consenting to please and satisfy the other, sexually speaking. But also, that means* a moral obligation of means of trying of consenting to receive caresses and sexual caresses coming from the other.* Each one is a passive agent and an active agent. Each one has the moral right to work on the body of the other, in the human fashion. Each one has the moral obligation to let the other to work on his or her body.
*
A wife has no right to say to her husband " I don’t want to be seen and looked at by you at the moment of my orgasms". The husband has the moral right to see her wife during her climaxes. He has the moral right to see, to feel, to hear, and to listen the body of his wife at those moments.* Some *wives *do not want to be stared during their orgasms, the husbands can require that. The husband can look at the face and the sexual reactions of his wife. If the wife refuses, she is not in her moral right, she has an issue, she has to consult.

The moral right to expect of getting normal orgasms via the conjugal act, in the human fashion, with sexual cooperation. Each one is held, morally speaking, to cooperate sexually speaking, to be active in working on the other and to be passive in letting the other to work his or her body. The moral right to expect getting normal sexual pleasures and normal sexual orgasms is natural.

 

[clem456]

For instance:*

During the practicing the marital act, by principle, each member of couple should to try to be, in reason of the contract of marriage:

The best lover as possible as in favor of the other.
Key word “should be”, is encouraged in love to be…

A wife has no right to say to her husband " I don’t want to be seen and looked at by you at the moment of my orgasms"

 

[fpt]

Key word “should be”, is encouraged in love to be…

No, he does not have the “moral right”.
You should show us something from the Church about this “moral right”.

When I say “a moral right” or a “moral obligation”,* I means a right or an obligation linked with the natural “moral” law, in the catholic way. *Here, the debate is about the morality of the conjugal act with all the corollaries, the primary rights / obligations / duties, the secondary rights / obligations / duties, and also the incidental rights, obligations / duties.

Of course, per se, the list of all the conjugal rights, of all conjugal obligations and of all the conjugal duties ***are not listed, in one same list, by the catholic Church. ***But, by the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, by the jurisprudence of the Holy Rota, by the catholic theology teaching in the university, by the catholic philosophy, by the anatomy (the teleology of organs), by the canon law… we are capable to elaborate this list. After, we can elaborate the moral regime of those rights, of those obligations and of those duties, with the principles and the exceptions.

If one spouse, before the day of marriage, excludes by the will to participate to the realization of sexual pleasures and sexual orgasms of the other in the context of the conjugal act (a doctrinal exclusion, the spouse do not care, willingly), what are the effects? The question of the validity of marriage? The question of the morality of this intention?

Morally speaking, during a session of the marital act, it is morally wrong, for a wife of not permitting to her husband to stare her orgasms. Her refusal is a great issue: moral issue, mental issue, spiritual issue. She doesn’t offer to her husband one part of the gift of the union of bodies. She is, maybe, selfish.* She must consult catholic specialists.*

 

[fpt]

Corrections:

When I say “a moral right” or a “moral obligation”,* I* mean** a right or an obligation linked with the natural “moral” law, in the catholic way. Here, the debate is about the morality of the conjugal act with all the corollaries, the primary rights / obligations / duties, the secondary rights / obligations / duties, and also the incidental rights, obligations / duties.

Of course, per se, the list of all the conjugal rights, of all *the *conjugal obligations and of all the conjugal duties are not listed, in one same list, by the catholic Church. But, by the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, by the jurisprudence of the Holy Rota, by the catholic theology taught in the catholic universities, by the catholic philosophy, by the anatomy (the teleology of organs), by the canon law… we are capable to elaborate this list. After, we can elaborate the moral regime of those rights, of those obligations and of those duties, with the principles and the exceptions.

If one spouse, before the day of marriage, excludes by the will to participate to the realization of sexual pleasures and sexual orgasms of the other in the context of the conjugal act (a doctrinal exclusion, the spouse do not care, willingly), what are the effects? The question of the validity of marriage? The question of the morality of this intention?

Morally speaking, during a session of the marital act, it is morally wrong, for a wife of not permitting to her husband to stare her orgasms. Her refusal is a great issue: moral issue, mental issue, spiritual issue. She doesn’t offer to her husband one part of the gift of the union of bodies. She is, maybe, selfish.* She must consult catholic specialists.*

There are the existence of moral right, the use of this moral right and the regime of this moral right. Of course, nothing is absolute: principles, exceptions, and limits.
*
Do you agree with the notion of right to the body and co with all the material effects and the consequences and the corollaries? yes or no?*

 

[fpt]

Key word “should be”, is encouraged in love to be…

No, he does not have the “moral right”.
You should show us something from the Church about this “moral right”.

For example, by principle, the catholic penitent has the moral right to invoke the Canon Law for asking the total anonymity during the confession. Normally, the penitent can ask not to be seen by the catholic confessor: the moral right recognised by the canon law of not being seen, the face must be hidden by a curtain or by other tools (a confessionnal).

The question of the opposability of this moral and canonical right to a catholic priest!!!

 

[clem456]

For example, by principle, the catholic penitent has the moral right to invoke the Canon Law for asking the total anonymity during the confession. Normally, the penitent can ask not to be seen by the catholic confessor: the moral right recognised by the canon law of not being seen, the face must be hidden by a curtain or by other tools (a confessionnal).

The question of the opposability of this moral and canonical right to a catholic priest!!!

I can only say it one more time.
You are taking elements that are part of the conjugal act and elevating them to moral rights.
A spouse does not have a right to the provision of pleasure by the other spouse. That makes the spouse an object. Persons cannot be objects. Pleasure is, or can be, or should be, “part of the whole package” in conjugal love.

And since we are chasing our tails now I am unsubscribing.